The authenticity of the position
of Patriarch Abdul Messiah II in his canonical position as the Patriarch of
Antioch was very controversial in the Malankara in the first decade of the
twentieth century and in the alleged transfer of the Mafrianate/ Catholicate.
I have dealt with it partly along with the discussion of the validity of the
transfer of the Mafrianate and the related issues earlier in this series.
Here I will be concentrating only on the juridical status of the deposed
Patriarch.

Georgy as any
other IO propagandist is trying to console all the partisans of IOC that the
removal of Patriarch Abdul Messiah was only due to political interference
and that the Church only passively accepted the removal and so outside the
Turkish territory he was canonically a 'senior Patriarch' and had all
privileges of his rank. Let us see his main arguments.

Our attempt
today would be to find evidence to dispel another popular myth.Myth:HH
Patriarch Abdul Masih II didn’t have the authority to consecrate a
Catholicos for Malankara in 1912."

To
substantiate the counter argument he first relies on the judgment of the
courts specifically favoring the IO stand. He concludes by saying that:

"Thus we find the Travancore High
Court judge pointing out that no plea had been raised on the invalidity of
HH Abdul Masih continuing to perform his spiritual functions. If the
Jacobites had material on the invalidity of HH Abdul Masih performing
spiritual functions due to the insinuations now being made in internet
forums, surely they would have presented it."

I don't know
whether Georgy is aware of the Judgment of the Travancore Royal Court (1946 T.L.R).
There we have ample reference to the Synodal excommunication of Mor Abdul
Messiah. The court provided a technical reason for not relying on this
exhibit citing the rules and regulations in the Travancore evidence act. The
Exhibit presented was the certified copy of the Synod decision. The decision
had been published in Syriac and in Malayalam in various publications. The
court's finding was that the 'synodal removal was not satisfactorily proved
beyond doubt' in accordance with the regulations of Travancore Act. In fact
the decision of the synod certified and attested by the first class
Magistrate of Mosul was submitted in the court. The court did not consider
it given the restrictions in the Travancore Evidence Act.

There are
also ample evidence other than this. The first and most reliable source is
the direct report of a person from Malankara present there in Turkey at that
time. It is none other than Mor Augen Bava, then T.A. Mathai Shemmashan, a
student and deacon at Kurkuma Dayara. He wrote to the Malankara headquarters
and his letter was published in the official monthly, the 'Malankara
Edavaka Pathrika' (1906 Karkkidakom). He writes, "… Mor Gregorios Abdulla
Bava is elected as the new Patriarch. All the people elected him without any
dissension, unanimously and in full unity..." While a Metropolitan, Mor
Timotheos Augen had stated the same under oath in the court. The 1946 TLR
judgment quoted his statements. He had attested to being a witness to the
synod that assembled there for this purpose. Moreover, when Mor Augen was
consecrated bishop, he had pledged to repudiate all the uncanonical acts of
the excommunicated and deposed Patriarch Mor Abdul Messiah. The only 'reciprocity', if any, I can find
here is the motivation to get consecrated as a Metropolitan. If you
refer to this 1946 TLR there are other conclusive findings of the court like
the invalidity of the installation of the second and third Catholicose, etc.
I am not going into such details here.

I invite
again the attention of my readers to the articles and documents published by
the Malankara Church at that time. This was much before any split in
Malankara and it at least shed light on the stand of the undivided church on
this issue. I have compiled the following:

1. A letter by T.A. Mathai Shemmashan
who was personally present there at the scene which reads like a first hand
report. You can read this as Appendix No.14B in my book, Perumpilly
Thirumeni…

2. The official circular from the then
Malankara Metropolitan Mor Dionysius Joseph conforming the installation of
Mor Abdulla II as the Patriarch. See Appendix No.14F (Ibid).

4. Appendix 14D (Ibid) is also another
article in the Malankara Edavaka Pathrika on this issue. Here there are
explicit references to the stand of the Ottoman Sultan in asking Poulose
Episcopa (official delegate at the capital) to swear allegiance to Mor Abdul
Messiah. It took two more years to convince the Sultan's office of the
necessity of the deposition.

The original
decision of the 1903 synod on the excommunication of Mor Abdul Messiah was
published here in Malankara in the 'Suriyani Sabha' monthly and the attested
copy was filed as exhibit in the court. I have also seen the copy of a
letter from the foreign affairs department of the Turkish Government
addressed to the Travancore Government stating that Mor Abdul Messiah was a
deposed Patriarch. This is included as a document in the litigation files in
our church cases.

I know it is
a futile exercise to investigate the validity of the canonical status of a
deposed Patriarch. His removal and excommunication were well accepted by the
Church everywhere. There was no one in his clerical or blood lineage
supporting or sympathizing with him anywhere in the Church. The Malankara
church also wholly accepted and received his removal de facto and accepted
the successor on the throne. Suppose for a moment that the unfortunate split
and excommunication of Vattaseril Thirumeni didn't happen in Malankara. What
then would have been the stand taken by the Malankara Church? It is a
fundamental truth that the advocacy taken up by IO propagandists in favour
of this poor soul is only based on the schismatic developments that happened
here. So it is the ultimate 'duty' of the IOC to justify the (il)'legitimacy'
of the excommunicated prelate. But it is also a fact that after (mis)using
this deposed Patriarch the IO forebears did not keep their word on their
promise to provide him support him to his end. Read his own letter
complaining about this. (Exhibit No. 81 in the Samudaya Case). Read the
Malayalam text in my book, 'Catholica Stapanathinte Yadhartha Nila', pp.
78-80. It says that it was agreed by those here in Malankara that they would
support him in all his needs. He pleaded to the IOs to keep their word.
After his return from Malankara, Mor Abdul Messiah had to resort to other
means like joining the Romans for his sustenance. This was because of two
evident reasons.

1. The mother church where he was
supported till his uncanonical acts in Malankara quite naturally might have
been embittered and gave little care and support. Or he himself was ashamed
to rely on the church which he betrayed. So he considered joining the Roman
Church.

2. The dissenters in Malankara who
persuaded him to act against the Church did not keep their word and failed
to support him. The Romans did not find much appeal in this poor, innocent
and troubled old Patriarch since he didn’t serve their motives in stealing
the sheep. So he was not well accepted there. Finally he was taken back by
his own mother church which he deserted and betrayed. He was allowed to
spend his last days at Kurkuma Dayara and was buried there. But Georgy
wrongly claims that:

"it’s reasonable to assume that
Patriarch Abdul Masih could draw upon considerable strength in the area
surrounding the patriarchate. Surely, he would have been the pride of his
people. This perhaps explains his continued residence there as a rival
patriarch." "HH Abdul Masih too would have returned back to his mother
church since he was after all buried at Deir-el-Za’aferan. I don’t know how
reliable the information is due to the Catholic connections of the authors.
But nevertheless, it may reflect some kernel of truth."

The above
claims are totally contrary to the truth. The church and the people
everywhere accepted the excommunication of Abdul Messiah and well received
the newly elected Patriarch. I have quoted the first hand contemporary
report of Mathai Shemmashan published here. Moreover, lack of supporters or
sympathisers there could be another reason for the valid background of the
excommunication. Georgy fancifully opens the windows of Kurkuma Dayara
through O.H. Parry's pages to state that, "it has the ‘‘most glorious view
to south and west across the plain and up the Qala’at-el-Mara Valley’. This
means that HH Abdul Masih’s supposed native village was only a stone’s throw
away from the Patriarchal seat. HH Abdullah, on the other hand, was a native
of Saddad, a village near Homs. If this inference is true, it’s reasonable
to assume that Patriarch Abdul Masih could draw upon considerable strength
in the area surrounding the patriarchate."

But these
whims are totally unfounded conjectures when we see that the former
Patriarch had no considerable support anywhere. He himself not even believed
or relied on the two monks who accompanied him to Malankara. Fr. P.T.
Geevarghese sent them in another ship from Bombay on their return from
Malankara. Similarly none followed him when he went with the Romans. Nobody
to this day has recorded anything in support of him even though Georgy
fancies that "he could draw considerable strength in the area surrounding
the Patriarchate". Moreover it is totally erroneous to claim that he was
buried with the honor of a Patriarch. Georgy has very selectively used words
to allude to this idea of the IO propaganda. He was buried among the
tombs where the monks were buried and not in the exclusive Beth Qadishe
reserved for the Patriarchs. V. Rev. Dr. Kuriakose Thottupuram from Chicago
visited the monastery last year and has recorded this truth. (Read his
article in Indian Orthodox Herald Malayalam Vol.1, No.44 - May 15, 2005).
His burial among the tombs of the monks in an unmarked tomb itself proves
that all the counter arguments of IO writers on his canonicity, strength and
support, claims of being rival/senior Patriarch, lack of synodal removal,
etc., do not have any merit.

Georgy's
research to find whether "Patriarch Abdul Masih II was excommunicated by the
Syriac Synod" is said to be "constrained by the absence of a first hand
visit to the theatre of action — the Tur `Abdin area of Turkey — to secure
authentic information through interviews with local experts, and possibly
the descendants of Patriarch Abdul Masih II’s immediate family."

He has
disregarded all the available references about this episode and goes on to
find evidence in the Ottoman attitude to Christians. I am not entering into
the non-contextual lengthy arguments raised by Georgy to say that the
Ottomans tried to interfere in the affairs of the church, based on the
western writers, and to claim that the same might have happened in the case
of Mor Abdul Messiah. I must also warn readers about the highly prejudiced
writings of western authors on all Islamic rulers and Eastern Christians.
Any glance through authors like Badger or Grant testifies to my
apprehension. I am also of the opinion that in case of the Syrian Church
such occurrences of undue interference from the Sultanate was not the norm.
In the case of Mor Abdul Messiah the Sultan was at first not in favour of a
change as I have quoted before.

Georgy's
following argument is dealt with earlier.

"There are some other curious
developments in the case of HH Abdul Masih. Throughout his tenure, the de
jure Patriarch Abdullah II was either traveling or resident at the Dayro
d-Mor Margos in Jerusalem, while the deposed Patriarch continued to stay in
Turabdin, either at the Kurkmo Dayro, the then official seat of the
Patriarch, or at Mor Gabriel in Midyat! On his death, the official patriarch
was buried at Jerusalem, while the so-called excommunicated patriarch was
buried at the Kurkmo Dayro, just as all patriarchs were honoured."

His admission
that Mor Abdul Messiah stayed at Turabdin, the seat of the Patriach while
Patriarch Abdulla was travelling all around points to the wide reception to
the newly installed Patriarch Mor Abdulla II. He points this out as a proof
for the 'validity' of the occupancy of the deposed Patriarch. But any one
can infer the fact that the ruling Patriarch cannot be idle in his 'seat'
but will have to travel throughout his 'See' to nourish his church. The
'honor' of the tomb of Mor Abdul Messiah in a monastery that has exclusive
tombs for Patriarchs has been testified by their own scholar. I need not
repeat it again.

Georgy's
'shock' in reading Adrian Fortescue is really without any reason. Any
student of Church History knows very well that the author is a Roman
Catholic who is only interested in noting any unsubstantiated allegations
about any non-Roman catholic church. The quote by Georgy proves beyond doubt
that Fortescue first blames Mor Abdulla to be a Protestant supporter and
then definitely declares him to be a uniate. It is also clear that in the
Catholic church they do not accept two bishops at the same time in a
bishopric. The real Catholic uniate bishop of Homs at that time was
Gregorios Georges Sahin. Moreover Georgy should also read O.H. Parry, who he
has quoted before, to learn about the wisdom, integrity and zeal of Mor
Abdulla for his church. He had to flee from his seat out of oppression from
authorities and had to seek asylum at the French consulate for political
reasons. They gave him protection there and he found safety with them. That
is all. When the situation changed he came out and the church at large,
knowing his precarious situation, received and accepted him. It is also
believed that one of the reasons for the estrangement of the church from Mor
Abdul Messiah is his ill treatment of Bishop Mor Abdulla. So to me the
references from Fortescue are not at all shocking! It is merely bickering of
the Romans!

John Joseph
also is seen to repeat the same story told by the American Missionaries
again based on a Roman uniate author. It is the same dish arranged in two
plates. I have discussed the real picture from internal evidence earlier. It
is ecclesiastically a proven fact that Mor Abdul Messiah was deposed and was
living among the monks, died there and was buried among the monks. He had
no canonical status after his removal from office anywhere in the church. He
had no sympathizers from among his relatives or from the members of the
church who he served for decades.

The Church in
Malankara accepted this fact and wholly received Mor Abdulla as Patriarch.
(Personally I can only sympathize with the IOC who cannot refrain from
defending this unhappy episode.) The whole validity of IOC hierarchy is
built upon this invalid and uncanonical act of this excommunicated
Patriarch. We must understand their position. They cannot undo what their
forefathers did. These are all accomplished facts and they cannot go back to
rectify, reform or refrain from justifying this as a community and as a
church. History cannot be undone.

Factually the
Abdul Messiah Mafrianate withered in 1913 itself. The so called rejuvenation
in 1925 was done again more uncanonically by the uncanonically installed
bishops, even without the co-operation of Vattaseril Thirumeni. All these
unhappy episodes were cosmetically glossed over in 1958 and was mainstreamed
in 1964. We need not have had to look back to all these anomalies if the
established peace process was reciprocated and upheld. I was forced to look
back to describe all these unhappy episodes in history only because of
Georgy's discussion of the half baked 'myths'. I apologize if I wounded the
feelings of the innocent IO believers who think that what they are taught is
the only truth.

Epilogue

I am indebted
to my friend Georgy for prompting me to write a series on these issues
related to the split in the Malankara Church despite the fact it makes cool
many warm friendships and gives me the title of being a "hard
core factionalist". My appeal to all is to take these as my academic
commitment and try to understand these as the perspective of the SOC. This
is how we see the facts contrary to IO perspectives. I would not have dared
to write this series without provocation from Georgy’s learned and well
articulated presentation. I acknowledge Georgy's zeal to the cause he is
committed to and his earnest research to defend his position. I suspect that
no one will change their allegiance based on these discussions. But my
request is to try to understand each other. Let us try to have mutual
respect, acceptance and peaceful co-existence. SOCM
and ICON forums have taken initiative to archive both the series for mutual
understanding. I think this will be the first reciprocative act. This in and
of itself is a great leap in mutual understanding.

I also
express my gratitude to ICON forum for publishing my responses at first in
the daily digest. I thought they were annoyed with my presentation when they
stopped. But I am happy that they have presented the whole series in their
document archive section. I express my thanks for their kind words and
openness to refer to my postings for reference and study.

MOSC forum
was also publishing my notes till recently. But all of a sudden they
pronounced a ban on my postings citing flimsy reasons contrary to their
claim that their forum allows free expression. Some fanatics there tried to
mock me by saying many unworthy and painful comments instead of pointing to
my errors, if any, raising counter arguments to the issues I raised or
presenting other reliable documents. I am sorry that the moderators of MOSC
never moderated any of those disparaging notes against me but resorted to
ban my postings. Nevertheless, I am thankful to them for bearing with me and
giving room to a series which I wrote in reply to the postings that appeared
in another forum. I am also happy that the MOSC 'elder' informed me that my
ban there is lifted for all other 'useful' postings.

Lastly, I
must thank the moderator, Thomas Daniel of SOCM
Forum for his kind persuasion, support, space and time for publishing
this series. He also created a link in the SOCMNet
for further reference and easy access. I am also thankful to Dr. Thomas
Joseph and Mr. John Philip for their support and suggestions.

Many of my
readers have sent me their comments of appreciation. Thank you all.